Picadio, Sneath, Miller & Norton - 412-288-4000

Norton on Insurance Coverage in Pennsylvania, 2nd Edition (PBI Press)

4710 U.S. Steel Tower
600 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2702

Phone: 412-288-4000
Fax: 412-288-2405
Email

Print This Page

Contact Us

Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C.

Pittsburgh Office

4710 U.S. Steel Tower
600 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2702

Phone: 412-288-4000
Fax: 412-288-2405

Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C., is a general litigation firm with concentrated litigation experience in the areas including business litigation, environmental law, insurance coverage and bad faith, construction law, financial fraud and investor litigation, and tort litigation . With offices in Pittsburgh, our attorneys serve clients in courts throughout Pennsylvania. If you have a question about our legal services or if you would like to schedule an appointment with one of our skilled lawyers, please call the number listed above, or complete the form below to send us an e-mail. We appreciate your interest in the services provided by our law firm.

NOTE: The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any indiviual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form. An asterisk (*) indicates REQUIRED information.

*Name:
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Phone:
Fax:
*Email Address:

*How would you like to be contacted?
Email Phone		Fax Postal Mail

Brief description of your legal issue:

Latest Business and Legal News

These news items and case summaries are a service provided by FindLaw. Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. does not endorse any service or product advertised or discussed in any of these items.

Business

[11/25] Analysis: Geithner is already shaping the economy

Intellectual Property

[11/25] Finally, urine recycler passes astronauts' test

Insurance

[12/02] Business Insurance Names 25 as Women to Watch

Environment

[11/26] Why won't polar bears mate? They're both female

More...

Case Summaries

Intellectual Property

[11/25] Bd. of Supervisors for La. State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll. v. Smack Apparel Co.
In a trademark dispute alleging that defendant infringed trademarks by selling t-shirts with several universities' color schemes and other identifying indicia referencing the games of the schools' football teams, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the color schemes had secondary meaning and, although unregistered, were protectible marks; 2) there was a likelihood of confusion connecting the marks and the universities themselves; 3) the marks at issue were nonfunctional and thus subject to Lanham Act protection; 4) defendants' use of the marks was not a nominative fair use; 5) the defense of laches did not apply; 6) actual confusion was not a prerequisite to an award of money damages; and 7) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorneys' fees.

More...

Insurance Law

[12/02] Love v. Dell Inc.
In a suit arising from the denial of health benefits under a plan subject to ERISA, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where two separate decisions by defendant-plan administrator to deny coverage as not medically necessary were supported by substantial evidence in the record, and were therefore not abuses of discretion.

More...

Environmental Law

[11/28] Albany Eng'g Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
In a case involving the reimbursement by downstream licensees of upstream dam operators for "headwater benefits" conferred by those dams, petition for review of a FERC order allowing state regulation of the reimbursements is granted, and order reversed in part, where section 10(f) of the Federal Power Act preempts state law over compensation for headwater benefits, and FERC's interpretation to the contrary was unreasonable.

More...

Commercial Law

[12/03] Andrzejewski v. Fed. Aviation Admin.
In proceedings arising after the FAA revoked petitioner's commercial pilot's license via emergency order, pilot's petition for review of an NTSB order reversing an ALJ's decision in pilot's favor is granted and the matter remanded where the NTSB's failure to give the ALJ's implicit credibility determination the requisite level of deference was contrary to NTSB precedent and, therefore, arbitrary and capricious.

More...

Disclaimer | Site Map